I say that because you don’t really seem to understand where the problem lies.

The new jobs report was out and man was it disappointing.

169,000 jobs created versus the expectation from economist that 180,000 jobs should have been be created.

It’s not me; it’s you.

Even the New York Times agrees.

“If the economy were to fill the jobs gap left by the recession within the next four years,” writes the New York Times, “around 300,000 jobs a month would need to be created, according to the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution.”

And it’s not just the number of jobs that have been created; it’s also the poor quality of jobs that have been created.

Continues the NYT: “Employment gains in the recovery have been disproportionately in lower-wage sectors like food service and retail, causing concern about not only the quantity of the new jobs but also their quality. The industries are more likely to hire part-time workers and operate on just-in-time schedules, making it difficult for employees to predict how many hours they will have from week to week.”

It’s not them; it’s you.

You’ve broken the system.

312,000 people dropped out of the labor force last month. There are 115,000 fewer people with jobs this month over last month.

Your Labor Secretary, Thomas Perez, went on CNBC this week to tout the fact that 90% of all jobs created since the passage of Obamacare have been full-time jobs.

Since Obamacare was enacted through July, only about 20% of jobs created have been full-time.

“According to a survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,” says Forbes, “71% of small businesses say the health care law makes it harder to grow. One-half of small businesses that must comply with the employer mandate say they will either cut hours of full-time employees or replace them with part-time workers. Twenty four percent say they will reduce hiring to stay under 50 employees.”

This month was a bright spot for full-time jobs, even if the quality of jobs sucked.

“While we already have the quantiative components of today's jobs number (horrendous),” writes ZeroHedge, “here is the qualitative breakdown. For the time constrained readers we will jump to the conclusion: absolutely abysmal, to a degree perhaps not seen in years. Of the 169K jobs added, the vast majority, some 144K or 85% of the entire August gain, consisted of the lowest paying jobs possible.”

You sure picked a great time to have fast food workers, who are paid the minimum wage, walk off the job.

Fast-food workers strike for higher pay, trumpets USAToday.

The three-color sign that the person holds in the accompanying photograph, along with the sign’s union label, is far-above the means of the minimum wage worker holding it.

It’s not me; it’s you.

Could it be that your White House coordinated these “faux” strikes?

Any job that pays is a good job to have at this point in our economy. But your unions in cooperation with the Labor Department are picking on the one area where poor people can find jobs today.

Why?

Not because it will create more jobs but because it will create more politics.

This from your ally at NBCNews: “U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez told The Associated Press the strikes were a sign of the need to raise the minimum wage. ‘For all too many people working minimum wage jobs, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity are feeling further and further apart,’ Perez said.”

You want to raise the minimum wage, using the workers who are the most vulnerable to accomplish it.

You even said so in late July.

“And because no one who works full-time in America should have to live in poverty,” you said at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois, “I am going to keep making the case that we need to raise the minimum wage.”

No, actually we don’t.

You said in that speech that the minimum wage was is now less than when Ronald Reagan was president. Perhaps it is in purchasing power. But you forgot to mention that Reagan refused to increase the minimum wage. Yet still incomes when up substantially.

That's because Reagan didn't interfere with job creation.

If put in today’s dollars, Reagan took median household income from $45,260 to $50,624. After reaching a high water mark in 1999 at $54,932 and then in 2000 at $54,841 and then again in 2007 at $54,489, median wages are, as of 2011, less than when Reagan left office.

They have fallen every year you have been in office.

That’s because wages don’t go up by an act of government; they go up because jobs are created.

There’s a record amount of money out there. There are record numbers of people ready to work.